Here is the wiki overview for anyone else who wonders what they guys sign was about..

It's Not Inside job - 9/11

It's Inside job - Financial Collapse

Part I: How We Got Here - The American financial industry was regulated from 1940 to 1980, followed by a long period of deregulation. At the end
of the 1980s, a savings and loan crisis cost taxpayers about $124 billion. In the late 1990s, the financial sector had consolidated into a few giant
firms.

In 2001, the Internet Stock Bubble burst because investment banks promoted Internet companies that they knew would fail, resulting in $5 trillion in
investor losses. In the 1990s, derivatives became popular in the industry and added instability. Efforts to regulate derivatives were thwarted by the
Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, backed by several key officials. In the 2000s, the industry was dominated by five investment banks
(Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, and Bear Stearns), two financial conglomerates (Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase), three
securitized insurance companies (AIG, MBIA, AMBAC) and three rating agencies (Moody’s, Standard & Poors, Fitch).

Investment banks bundled mortgages with other loans and debts into collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), which they sold to investors. Rating
agencies gave many CDOs AAA ratings. Subprime loans led to predatory lending. Many home owners were given loans they could never repay.

Part II: The Bubble (2001-2007) - During the housing boom, the ratio of money borrowed by an investment bank versus the bank's own assets reached
unprecedented levels. The credit default swap (CDS), was akin to an insurance policy. Speculators could buy CDSs to bet against CDOs they did not own.
Numerous CDOs were backed by subprime mortgages.
Goldman-Sachs sold more than $3 billion worth of CDOs in the first half of 2006. Goldman also bet against the low-value CDOs, telling investors they
were high-quality. The three biggest ratings agencies contributed to the problem. AAA-rated instruments rocketed from a mere handful in 2000 to over
4,000 in 2006.

Part III: The Crisis - The market for CDOs collapsed and investment banks were left with hundreds of billions of dollars in loans, CDOs and real
estate they could not unload. The Great Recession began in November 2007, and in March 2008, Bear Stearns ran out of cash. In September, the federal
government took over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which had been on the brink of collapse. Two days later, Lehman Brothers collapsed.

These entities all had AA or AAA ratings within days of being bailed out. Merrill Lynch, on the edge of collapse, was acquired by Bank of America.
Henry Paulson and Timothy Geithner decided that Lehman must go into bankruptcy, which resulted in a collapse of the commercial paper market. On
September 17, the insolvent AIG was taken over by the government.

The next day, Paulson and Fed chairman Ben Bernanke asked Congress for $700 billion to bail out the banks. The global financial system became
paralyzed. On October 3, 2008, President Bush signed the Troubled Asset Relief Program, but global stock markets continued to fall. Layoffs and
foreclosures continued with unemployment rising to 10% in the U.S. and the European Union. By December 2008, GM and Chrysler also faced bankruptcy.
Foreclosures in the U.S. reached unprecedented levels.

Part IV: Accountability - Top executives of the insolvent companies walked away with their personal fortunes intact. The executives had hand-picked
their boards of directors, which handed out billions in bonuses after the government bailout. The major banks grew in power and doubled anti-reform
efforts. Academic economists had for decades advocated for deregulation and helped shape U.S. policy. They still opposed reform after the 2008 crisis.
Some of the consulting firms involved were the Analysis Group, Charles River Associates, Compass Lexecon, and the Law and Economics Consulting Group
(LECG).

Part V: Where We Are Now - Tens of thousands of U.S. factory workers were laid off. The new Obama administration’s financial reforms have been
weak, and there was no significant proposed regulation of the practices of ratings agencies, lobbyists, and executive compensation. Geithner became
Treasury Secretary. Feldstein, Tyson and Summers were all top economic advisors to Obama. Bernanke was reappointed Fed Chair. European nations have
imposed strict regulations on bank compensation, but the U.S. has resisted them.

Originally posted by Heyyo_yoyo
I'm wondering how this Oath Keeper's arrest is affecting TheOath Keepers Organization as a whole right now....

You are right he is an oath keeper. I watched this clip live and before they walked him to the bus he realized his mistake in the beginning that he
was opposed to the Oath keepers. He said corrected himself and said he wasn't a "member" but that he agreed with the principles of the Oath
Keepers. He said he confused the group with another group when first asked.

Originally posted by joyride0187
It just amazes me how many people think Government was created to take care of them and if not the Government, the unions. If we continue down this
path we will all be fighting for a piece of the pie until there is no pie left, because the folks who actually make the pie have stopped making
it!!

It's not just about taking care, it's speaking up for and on behalf of them.
If there were no unions and nobody to regulate working conditions then people would be killed and injured far more often at work.

If there was no system in place to help those who have fallen on hard times, and no benefits system, the homeless numbers and numbers of those who
couldn't feed and clothe their kids would also be astronomical.
It's not about just taking and taking.... It's about looking out for your fellow human beings.

You can't even just blame the MSM for this, people can watch live feed, watch youtube videos... there are many ways to see that these global protests
are made up of every single type of person, from all walks of life and financial situations.

Unfortunately, most people who bash these protests and are constantly attacking them, have an agenda.... they don't want CHANGE.... change is
scary.... new things are scary, they like things the same... even if the same means bad, that's ok because they are the same.

Sad but true...

Sad but true is, to me, only your view. I'm not afraid of any change, as long as it is not specifically stupid. And Gettiing rid of the powers that
be is specifically stupid.

I'm not ogiong to get into a long diatribe as it's useless and I'm not trying to convert you, or anyone else. Whatever will be, will be. But
getting rid of the places where the money is, the companies that make jobs, the people who profit on creating all those jobs, and the profits, and so
on, and don't simply give it out equally to everyone is basically a socialist/communist ticket, and I basically think it's wrong, and incredibly
stupid. That is, unless you happen to be real happy with the limited possibilities and probabilities of life under that kind of regime. Give me a
break.

Originally posted by sigung86
Sad but true is, to me, only your view. I'm not afraid of any change, as long as it is not specifically stupid. And Gettiing rid of the powers that
be is specifically stupid.

I said Most people and also nobody wants to get of TPTB.
People want greater transparency, greater responsibility and less greed and corruption.... not difficult really.

But getting rid of the places where the money is, the companies that make jobs, the people who profit on creating all those jobs, and the profits, and
so on, and don't simply give it out equally to everyone is basically a socialist/communist ticket, and I basically think it's wrong, and incredibly
stupid.

Nobody has a problem with companies, with people making money, creating jobs or anything.... seriously, what are you talking about?

Ever heard of independent regulation?
You set up an independent regulatory body and have them do it.

And who is going to regulate the independent regulators? and who will regulate the regulators of the independent regulators?...

Anyway, we have heard the comments made by OWS people, and they don't want some independent regulators, they want the government to regulate
corporations.

By puting more controls is not how you fix the system. You fix the system by going back to a real free market where there is no government
regulation. Take away all the laws passed by "progressives" and "corpocrat RINOs" which have been pinning down small businesses for decades and small
businesses will be the ones to win the fight instead of corporations.

Take away every law which has been giving more power to the largest corporations, and keep the government out of business.

Originally posted by blupblup
Savings and other activities of high street banks need to be separate...banks should not be able to gamble away customers money, the different "arms"
of banking should not be crossed.

If you don't like how some big banks are using your money just move your money to another bank. giving the government power to regulate banks is not
going to solve anything, it will only centralize more power.

Originally posted by blupblup
No It's not... you just see what you want to see.
Regulation = Socialism/Communism??

Really?

When you try to centralize power and give more, and more power to the state/corporation that is socialism/communism.

The way Obama and his administration took over GM, and shared a percentage of what USED to be a private business with Canada is an example of
centralization of power in socialism.

Oh and btw, what sort of power can an "independent regulator" have over big banks, and corporations? How will such an "independent regulator" FORCE
banks, and corporations to do their will? The answer should be obvious, a civilian "independent regulator group" would have no real power whatsoever
to FORCE banks, and corporations, hence why regulations are done mainly by government agencies.

Why do you think a civilian group couldn't hold power. Technically civilians have power over the government that you are saying has the power to
regulate corporations. People just aren't using their power like they should. They should be doing lots of recalls and impeachments.

Why do you think a civilian group couldn't hold power. Technically civilians have power over the government that you are saying has the power to
regulate corporations. People just aren't using their power like they should. They should be doing lots of recalls and impeachments.

No idependent civilian regulators would have any power to MAKE anyone do anything, only the government, and government agencies have the power to
FORCE, through regulations, businesses to do what the state/government wants.

Even civilian watchdogs only have the ability to REPORT to the government when something fishy might be going on.

Also, in case you didn't know, the founding fathers of the U.S. set up our elections not to be controlled by the mayority, so that the U.S. is not
ruled by "the mob". The electoral college was put in place just so a mayority/mob rule/dictatorship wouldn't happen.

The problem was that Americans fell complacent and let their guard down, and through decades of indoctrination and brainwashing Americans began to
accept ideas which opened up the door for corruption within the government, as well as ideas which has been destroying the nation, and has been
transforming it into a socialist corpocracy for almost a century.

BTW, you truly want to have a mayority of people vote on what should happen to corporations, and small businesses?... A mayority of the same people
who, for the most part, would not even try to find out much on who they are voting for, and don't even ask what the agenda of those they vote for
is?...

BTW, did you know that "progressive democrats/liberals", and in general leftwingers around the world, including the world elites, want to allow
children as young as 16 and even 14 years old to be able to vote in the U.S. and anywhere else around the world? Any idea why they want this to
happen?

Children at that age are manipulated VERY EASILY, they tend to be idealists and believe all the lies that can be sold by the left and the world
elites. It also would give more votes to "progressive democrats/liberals" in general.

You really want to have corporations control the people who decide what is good for us? This amendment (though I think it needs to be juicer) wouldn't
do anything but remove the EXACT that is corrupting our government. It is imperative that we end the GOP idiocy of treating corporations like they are
people. People aren't voting what happens to corporations, they are just removing their ability to vote for a candidate and corrupt them with their
money.. It's the most sensible thing possible. Should have been done from day one. People still work for, and own those businesses. They aren't going
to hurt their own employers or businesses.

You can't see it because you remain as blinded as always, but the crooked system is exploited already. The few in your scenario are actually the poor,
because the votes are now cast with money. The majority in our process has been manipulated to be the majority of money. So there is minority control
which is the worst outcome possible.

I don't really support 14 year olds voting, I do however think 16 would be fair enough. You say kids are very easily manipulated at that age. I say,
apparently a whole swathe of Americans aged teen to elderly are very easily manipulated as evidenced by Fox News. They are brainwashed.

Back it up with evidence please.
Don't just have people answer claims of yours. Give them evidence so they don't waste their time.
Lot's of people from lots of protests claim lots of things. Doesn't mean it's representative of the tens of thousands of protesters in the States
or hundreds of thousands around the world.

And if you cannot even answer other members comments, without resorting to using foul language. Then just really shows what type of member you really
are eh. And for the record, I fight my own battles I do not need mods to fight them for me. So your assumptions is wrong.

Do not even bother replying. I wont be responding to anymore of your comments that is for sure.

I said Most people and also nobody wants to get of TPTB.
People want greater transparency, greater responsibility and less greed and corruption.... not difficult really.

I do! I'd be happy to have a representative council of 'elders' that do actually place humanity at the top of their list of concerns, but I'm more
than happy to see the current bunch of narcicists and vampiric power brokers knocked off their ivory towers.

Personally, I vote for complete transparency, total responsibility and zero greed/corruption.

Well yes, ultimately that would be great... but to be realistic and have goals that could be achievable in the foreseeable future, I think things like
greater transparency and less corruption, tighter regulations and more stringent and enforced taxes on the 1% etc etc... would be a much better
approach.

I would love what you suggest... I would love for the people to have the power.... but it's all about steps.

“A journey of a thousand miles must begin with a single step.” Lao Tzu

Oh and btw, what sort of power can an "independent regulator" have over big banks, and corporations? How will such an "independent regulator"
FORCE banks, and corporations to do their will?

It's not about forcing anyone to do "their will" ... just the fact that someone WOULD be watching, taking notes, scrutinising the dealings of these
banks... would be a HUGE help and quite a decent deterrent.

Indeed, I think you just a nail on the head there and what you mention is actually one of the cornerstones of business and appears to work quite well.
Groups of employees tend to police each other. If one of them does something wrong such as stealing or gross misconduct, another employee will usually
be there to report it. The more transparency there is in everything, the less likely the chance for abuse, imho.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.